Justice Committee on April 22nd, 2026

[The Vice-Chair (Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Ms. Hajek, as you probably know, Bill C‑16 addresses the issue of femicide. Do you have anything to say about that?

Is femicide of elderly persons widespread or is it more uncommon as of a certain age? What are your thoughts on that?

[Marta C. Hajek]

In 2024, for example, there were 7,622 police-reported senior victims of family violence. In Ontario, nearly half, or 47%, were femicide victims, and most of those were over the age of 55. They were killed by a family member, and often the accused was their son. It is escalating. Different review committees have commented, like the Ryan inquest, for example, and there are recommendations within those inquests on how to deal with it.

[The Vice-Chair (Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Ms. Hajek. My time is up.

Mr. Lawton, you now have the floor for five minutes.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Parker, you mentioned in your opening statement that you would propose graduated offences and have a range there. We haven't had the benefit of receiving your brief yet. Could you explain what it is you're referring to, please?

[Naomi Parker]

Our current criminal law treats child sexual abuse as discrete acts, and there's one section in the Criminal Code, section 271, which is the one charge available. Without graduated offence categories, it means that very different forms of sexual abuse, for example, an unwanted touch of a breast or long-term, repetitive penetrative sexual assault, are absorbed into the same charge. It obscures the differences and the severity of the impact.

This directly contributes to the inconsistent charging and sentencing, and it can leave survivors feeling that the system did not fully understand what happened to them. It also does not give police and prosecutors clear tools that can help them better match the realities they investigate. That's why I paired that conversation with the conversation around mandatory minimums.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I realize and respect that your expertise is on the victims and not necessarily on the law itself. However, is it your view that it would perhaps insulate us from having to deal with a safety valve and some of the reasonable hypotheticals that could come up in a legal discourse surrounding mandatory minimums because there's so much latitude under what is currently being captured by the offence versus what you're proposing? Is that what you're getting at?

[Naomi Parker]

I'm definitely not a constitutional lawyer, so I'm not going to speak about the safety valve. However, I think that the graduated offence categories, which we have heard about repeatedly from police officers we work with, would help them in the investigative process. It would help them recognize the harm happening to the victims and the level of evidence available to support them.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Just to confirm, have you already submitted that recommendation to the committee clerk?

[Naomi Parker]

That specific recommendation is not in our brief, but I can follow up and put it in.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I would appreciate it if you could do that quickly. We're going to be doing our clause—

[The Vice-Chair (Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Hold on a second, Mr. Lawton; I've stopped the clock.

Ms. Parker, could you slow down a bit? The interpreters are having trouble keeping up with you.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you. Usually, it's me who has to slow down their speaking, so welcome to my world, Dr. Parker.

If you could submit that—and do it rather quickly, if you're able to, as we'll be doing clause-by-clause review on Monday—I'd be very interested in seeing what you believe would help the legislation.

On the victim side of things, I have spoken to the committee before about my experience. I was a victim of sexual abuse as a child. When I was grappling with this as an adolescent and into adulthood, the idea of having to testify about it was a terrifying experience even then. Children don't have the maturity or awareness to know to be terrified because it is such a foreign experience.

We also have due process. Any time justice legislation comes before this committee, we end up in this back-and-forth where victims' rights seem to be subordinated to the rights of offenders and whatnot.

Could you speak, from your experience, to the lasting scars that can come not just from the victimization, but from the way the legal system can aggravate and recreate that victimization?

[Naomi Parker]

Absolutely. The justice system, as it exists right now, is driven by system capacity, fragmented investigations and repeated adjournments, so children often wait years to provide their case, and their disclosures are duplicated or trials are postponed.

We know children's memory is affected by their developmental stage as well, so when they have to tell their stories repeatedly when they are questioned in a court, it absolutely creates trauma. We know that children and youth are recanting and choosing not to participate in the system because it is causing them so much harm.

[The Vice-Chair (Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Ms. Parker, our interpreters are at a loss. I would respectfully ask you to slow down, if possible. It's not your fault, it's the system's fault. Thank you in advance.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I appreciate your trying to help me maximize my time, nevertheless, Dr. Parker.

I have just one final question I'll ask you.

When we have these discussions, how much of this do you believe is a legal issue that needs to be solved within the legislation versus training and awareness issues that need to be dealt with through the provincial court systems and also through police agencies?

[Naomi Parker]

I definitely do not see it as black and white or either-or. There are definitely system capacity issues, but the system is trying to do everything for everyone. You need to protect the accused's rights, the victim's rights and the system itself. There are definitely training issues, but there are also judge and Crown prosecutor capacity issues.

At Luna, specifically, we can assess a case within four days—

[The Vice-Chair (Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you very much, Ms. Parker.

If I understand correctly, Mr. Housefather and Ms. Dhillon are going to share their speaking time, which is five minutes. I'll let them decide who goes first.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with Ms. Hajek.

During consultations on coercive control, stakeholders noted that this is a complex and sensitive offence that requires system readiness to be implemented effectively. The bill includes a two-year coming into force period to support that preparation.

From your perspective, how important is it that this type of implementation period exist?

[Marta C. Hajek]

Respectfully, what we would like to see is.... That two-year waiting period would leave so many other people behind. We hear cases of individuals every day who are experiencing the effects of abuse. They can't wait two years to suddenly become part of this legislation.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

You are proposing that it be done as quickly as possible.

[Marta C. Hajek]

Yes, I am. For example, for someone who has been coerced out of their life savings and now has to live in a box under the expressway, has been left homeless or is maybe living in their car, what recourse do they have? Is it to wait two years for legislation to change, or is there something we can implement sooner to help improve their quality of life?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

We have heard of an interest in whether similar approaches could apply in other contexts. Given the complexity of this new offence, how important is it to continue engaging with stakeholders and fully assess how it is working before considering any further expansion?

[Marta C. Hajek]

Respectfully, I think the consultative process has been exhausted. We can give countless examples of situations we deal with every day. Prior to COVID, we were dealing with maybe 250 cases. Now we are doing 1,900 within three months. That should tell you the increase in terms of what that abusive behaviour is doing to the older population.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

In your opinion, what could be the cause of this pronounced increase?

[Marta C. Hajek]

People are finding more heinous and more complex ways of undermining the autonomy and independence of an older person. Again, when COVID happened, a lot of families lost their jobs or whatever. Suddenly, they were moving into their mother's or father's home and taking it over. Where the older adults had command of this home and welcomed their children, they're suddenly living in the basement and the family has taken over. They have little access to proper food, proper medication and proper health care.

Behind closed doors—and this is the hardest part for us to tackle—we really don't know what's going on. We would like to see consequences for coercive behaviour—and these home takeovers, for example.